1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 10, 2024, 02:07:53 PM »

I think I'm interpreting "disarm" and "ban guns" a bit more broadly than you, but regardless, I'll rephrase - I strongly disagree with the notion that an armed population are somehow a check on the federal government or a deterrent to any undesirable activity on their part, and that if the government were planning to pass shitty, unpopular, or blatantly unconstitutional laws, they would first need to disarm the population. That's just something that gun enthusiasts like to tell themselves (and everyone else) so they can imagine that they're actually performing an important civic duty by pursuing their hobby.

This is certainly a strange opinion to have that runs contrary to recorded history. Do you have a lot of good examples of countries where the population was well armed but ended up widely suppressed by an authoritarian government anyway?

I'm not trying to call you specifically out. I'm just saying that the implied threat of an armed population in this country making trouble for or resisting an oppressive government is ultimately an empty one. Americans will not rise up against their government en masse, with or without their guns. Politicians know this. In fact, I'd say that anyone who has taken the time to actually think about this subject instead of immediately accepting gun enthusiasts' romanticized view of their hobby as the undisputed truth knows this. In light of this fact, I think that conspiracy theories about how gun control laws and policies are secretly intended to make the population compliant and unable to resist in the face of further tyranny fall apart.

Is your opinion seriously "rebellions against governments never happen"? Seems a bit silly, don't you think? We're barely a decade removed from Arab Spring. Surely you've heard about that one, at least?

As Jim Jeffreys notes in his bit about guns in one of his stand up tours, there's only one argument for having guns, and that's "I like guns".
People don't need it for "protection", they're not going to rise up against the government, they just like guns.

It's almost like guns have multiple uses simultaneously.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 09, 2024, 01:12:23 PM »

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

What do you want a gun for then?

Recreational activities.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 09, 2024, 12:19:53 AM »

Oh, ok. You should rest easy then. If I'm found with a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb by the federal government it will definitely be taken away from me and I will definitely get in a lot of trouble. So this "disarming" that you speak of actually happened decades ago, no need to fear it as something imminent now.

Nuclear weapons and dirty bombs aren't real, so I don't think anyone has to worry about whether you have one.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 08, 2024, 09:09:34 PM »

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

Examples?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/kamala-harris-assault-weapons-ban-tax-relief-pennsylvania

https://pelosi.house.gov/issues/gun-violence-prevention

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-democrats-continue-push-for-assault-weapons-ban

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 08, 2024, 02:06:40 PM »

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

I'm not saying you can't rebel; I'm saying you won't rebel. Prove me wrong.

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 07, 2024, 04:14:21 PM »

It's been very successfully implemented in other countries

Which countries?

it's objectively an ideal way to all but eradicate every negative effect that prostitution has on society at large - diseases, violence, sexual assault, and the like.

[citation needed]

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 03, 2024, 05:46:47 PM »

Poll update:

National: Harris +2.2 -- This Day In History:  October 3, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 3, 2016: Clinton +3.2
Arizona: Trump +1.7
Nevada: Harris +1.1
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.7
Pennsylvania: Tie
North Carolina: Trump +0.6
Georgia: Trump +1.5

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 03, 2024, 04:28:30 AM »

I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far.

"my friend 'went to a voodoo ritual'" is already a bridge too far for me to take anything that follows at face value

I don't think your lack of friend diversity should reflect upon Action69's story.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 01, 2024, 01:13:33 PM »

no i just think he's lying

I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far. I will say, in personal experience, it's usually chickens.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 30, 2024, 02:07:46 PM »

I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.

lol this never happened.

I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.

I'll take "things that never happened" for $1000, Alex! 

ITT: we cope by pretending all cultures on earth are Western with different coats of paint on them. They don't do anything Western cultures would think is insane or silly! Nothing ever happens, amirite fellas?

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 28, 2024, 01:15:48 PM »

Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo.

"Trump did the wrong thing" is why the nonprofit organization representing the Haitian immigrants who have legal status is filing criminal charges against Trump, even if the local authorities won't.

Wasting justice system time with frivolous charges is not the morally right thing to do. Trump made some morally wrong choices, but they weren't illegal. I know you have a hard time with this, markjo, but the legal system and morality are not 1:1.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 26, 2024, 11:45:52 PM »

What personal profit?  It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.

They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.

As if Trump hasn't been fund raising to pay his legal bills for years.

Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 26, 2024, 09:02:16 PM »

What personal profit?  It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.

They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 26, 2024, 02:12:08 PM »

I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort.  Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong.

Gee, markjo, I didn't realize you're unable to analyze a situation unless someone tells you word-for-word what happened like you're a toddler. I think it can be inferred that the prosecutor told them to get bent and they decided to scam gullible people like yourself into thinking they have a case when they obviously do not. You should not be cheering on attempts to waste justice system resources in the pursuit of personal profit just because you don't like Trump.

15

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: September 26, 2024, 01:20:38 AM »

https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/a-timeline-of-russias-nuclear-threats-against-the-west-947

Here's a big scary list of all the times Russia has brought up using weapons that don't exist and then, unsurprisingly, not using them.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 26, 2024, 12:46:43 AM »

There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.

Defamation is not protected speech.

Did you even read the article?

The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor

The local prosecutor told them what Trump did isn't against the law. They're spending their own money and time bringing pointless charges, probably in the hopes that it will bring in donations from morons. They already know they're not going to win and it'll be thrown out of court before going to trial.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 24, 2024, 05:29:37 PM »

Poll update:

National: Harris +2.4 -- This Day In History: September 24, 2020: Biden +6.9 | September 24, 2016: Clinton +3.0
Arizona: Trump +2.2
Nevada: Harris +0.4
Wisconsin: Harris +1.0
Michigan: Harris +1.8
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.6
North Carolina: Trump +0.5
Georgia: Trump +2.1

Neither Trump nor Harris have made themselves a clear winner, as the numbers in each state are still too close.

18

Technology & Information / Re: ⚡Is my browser faster than your browser?

« on: September 23, 2024, 08:02:02 PM »

Looks like I am still winning. Rushy likely photoshopped his number or took one from someone else. I am disqualifying him based on past deceptions. He is a notorious swindler, I am sure we all agree.

My browser is fast thanks to all the heat pipes I installed on it.

19

Technology & Information / Re: ⚡Is my browser faster than your browser?

« on: September 22, 2024, 07:58:30 PM »

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 21, 2024, 02:14:38 PM »

There are alot of reports, but they don't get national attention because they're borderline innocent or just not innocent at all. Local new, however, reports on them.  If only briefly.

That being said, its about optics.  Banning the guns that make national news makes gun violence seem less (if it does lessen it) and thus, less of an issue to be fixed.  Which means it's fixed (to the general population).  The rest?

Out of sight, out of mind.

Politicians have been campaigning on offering solutions to problems that sound simple and punchy but are ultimately ineffective since the dawn of civilization. It's far more likely that that's what this is rather than any kind of insidious scheme to disarm the American public. Im fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.

Playing devil's advocate: they probably think it's easier to ban the big, scary gun and appear like they're doing something.

So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.

That said:

Why not both?

I believe it should be neither, but I don't want this thread devolving into a gun law meme again. This is specifically about policies in America with respect to the current candidates; I don't want to generalize the thread into being about the 2nd amendment. I already made a thread for that.

Banning cars is also an amazing idea, and if we need to say we're doing it to stop drunk drivers to achieve it, so be it.

This is what urban nightmare dwellers really believe.


I want to further iterate that my problem is with Harris somehow trying to simultaneously hold the position of "I support the second amendment" and "I want to ban assault weapons". It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position and it's not even a good one. Out of the possible options to "improve" gun safety in the US, she seems to have managed to pick all of the least effective yet the most strenuous options. It's sort of like telling people you really want to halt climate change, so you mandate that coal plants should be 3% more efficient instead of building nuclear plants instead. It feels like needless lip service.